The Vatican appears in need of a serious media consultant. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, has issued a defense that boils down to insisting that implicated priests were not pedophiles but homosexuals who liked young boys — and besides no more than five percent of priests had sex with children . . . and Jews and Protestants do it more.
Tomasi made his confrontational statement following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, insisting only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse. Tomasi seems to think that the faithful can rest assured that the likelihood that the priest will sexually assault your child is only 5 out of every 100 priests. Those are odds that are viewed as more than adequate in Vegas.
He also insisted that it is more likely that your child will be abused by Protestant or Jewish religious leaders — making the Catholic Church a virtual safe zone if you are going on purely the average likelihood of a rape. That could lead to a new campaign: “Go Catholic: We are Statistically Less Likely to Rape Your Child.”
Besides, Tomasi insisted “[o]f all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.” He insisted most of the accused priests are homosexuals who simply liked younger partners.
The angry response came after Keith Porteous Wood of the International Humanist and Ethical Union accused the Church of covering up child abuse and being in breach of several articles under the Convention on the Rights of the Child: “The many thousands of victims of abuse deserve the international community to hold the Vatican to account, something it has been unwilling to do, so far. Both states and children’s organizations must unite to pressure the Vatican to open its files, change its procedures worldwide, and report suspected abusers to civil authorities.”
For the full story, click here.
There is only one issue here and that issue is the systematic cover up and protection of pedophiles by the RCC in order to avoid civil liability for the crimes of their employees.
Can you answer that charge, wayne? Not attack me. Attack the above statement only.
Attacking me personally will be of no avail. You cannot anger me nor can you accomplish anything but make yourself look even more like a troll loser by going back to that tactic instead of answering the charge. You are not as funny as I am so I’ll always turn your ineptness against you when you resort to insult. That has been the history and shows no sign of changing. Yes, yes, it can be entertaining but the real issue here is the one you keep refusing to address.
Stay focused, wayne.
Refute the charge. Defend your precious RCC. Any other reply is just evasion.
If the RCC is too much of a challenge for you to defend on a logical factual basis though, wayne, I’ll cut you a little slack and let you substitute an argument in defense of NAMBLA. After all, it’s the same behavior minus the tithing, prayers or natty artwork and buildings.
Refutation of what, exactly? You never specified which piece of nonsense you wanted me to whack you over the head with so let’s stick to the original plan: you answering the charge I made against the RCC with a logical and factual refutation, wayne. You have been Mr. “I can kick your ass in an argument” with just about everyone in here and not once have you bested anyone. Here is your chance. Put up or shut up. Because if all you are going to do is nanny nanny boo boo, then quite frankly, you are demolished already and as big a fraud as that clown the Herr Pope. The good people here deserve better entertainment than this piss poor showing on your part.
So let’s be clear.
I have nothing to refute. Zip, zero, nada.
I didn’t rape any children nor do I support an organization that not only condones this sort of behavior but act as outright accomplices.
You, on the other hand, do support such an organization, wayne. The RCC.
The ball of proof is in your court.
Defend your beloved infallible perfect organization to the world, you follower of men.
That’s what you are here for, isn’t it? I mean, other than getting your daily dose of degradation and humiliation at the hands of those who are without question your intellectual superiors as demonstrated by the perpetual thrashing you get here? Defending the Pope and the RCC and the pedophiles they hide? It’s what YOU do, wayne, not me. That would mean you are on the defensive. I made the charge, you defend, that’s how adversarial process works. Since you wanted to be such an argumentative bad ass and can take on anyone here by your own proclamation, here’s your chance to prove it once and for all.
Prove me wrong in saying that the RCC is currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.” If you can’t/won’t/don’t that means I WIN. This is also how adversarial process works. It’s a dialectic. But if your part of the dialog is going to be name calling instead of evidence and logical refutation of the charge as levied?
That the only kind of dribbling you are good at is closer to drooling is of no concern to me other than it provides good entertainment for the readers.
Elaine M. 1, October 2, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I think it best that I stay out of this testosterone-infused discussion. Guess I’ll just pour myself another glass of wine–Merlot, Pinot Noir, Cabernet…whatever.
Anonymously Yours,
I’m not taking any responsibility for having taught a certain “one or two” of you commenting in this thread.
******************************
I certainly do not blame you Teach.
Still waiting for that line by line refutaion buddha. I don’t suspect I will get it, I asked you first and you don’t have the debating “chops” to tackle me. “Mowing” you down will be fun sport, just proceed by answering my question. C’mon,you need to put on a good show for your little “ankle biter” Byron. His hero worship of you is gonna drop a peg or two if you turn “yellow”. Your so yellow, you stink out loud…..
Puzzling,
“Where is the siege on the Roman Catholic Church, which has victimized tens of thousands in the United States?”
I’ve started to notice a trend in which people all want accountability, as long as it doesn’t include them and theirs.
Perhaps life is just afterall and what we have is simply what we deserve.
Mea culpa in regard to forgetting about Waynebro’s past.
Jan 4, 2009.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/04/leading-israeli-newspaper-pity-for-palestinians-in-gaza-is-immoral-and-unethical/#more-6828
It is perhaps more correct to say ephebophile, not ephebophiliac, above.
Part of what the RCC is attempting to do is change the branding of their offenders, from pedophiles to ephebophiliacs. This is worth further investigation since it is prominent in Tomasi’s statement.
An ephobophiliac refers to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents. In the mind of those evaluating this new RCC debate term “ephebophiliac”, the RCC is attempting to position priests as individuals whose sexual preference includes those who have reached the age of consent, late teenagers. This is a clever reset and rebranding through the use of clinical terminology. The RCC moral calculus continues: if an ephebophiliac has a sexual attraction to one who is 18 or 19, then a sexual relationship for someone who looks 18 or 19 (but is perhaps 16) is substantially equivalent, but certainly not pedophilia. Our society considers 18 year olds adults for all practical purposes, and this distinction being drawn by the RCC is subtle but important.
The problem with the RCC argument is that the majority of victims of the RCC were not mid to late adolescents. In fact, the majority were between 11 and 14, although a large group were even younger. In clinical terms, this is hebephilia, and molestation of an 11 year old is something that our society would certainly consider a kind of pedophilia, regardless of what clinical term you put on it. Therefore, this statement by the RCC is purely propaganda, and intentionally disrupts both the moral and clinical debate.
In 1993 there was “absolutely no question that there was overwhelming evidence of child abuse in the Waco compound.” (Stephanopolis), and this was the justification necessary for the government to mount a massive assault on the Branch Dividians, killing dozens.
Where is the siege on the Roman Catholic Church, which has victimized tens of thousands in the United States?
Mike A.,
I enjoyed your comments and the information about your Catholic upbringing. I went to Catholic grade school with the Benedictines and I agree that the problem of abuse is worse with the Diocesan priests. However, I do not share your optimism that the Vatican will eventually allow priests to marry. The Vatican, especially under the current Pope, is very right wing and will kill the Church before admitting that they are wrong. I hope I am wrong. Maybe it is not too late for Billy to enter the seminary!
I think it best that I stay out of this testosterone-infused discussion. Guess I’ll just pour myself another glass of wine–Merlot, Pinot Noir, Cabernet…whatever.
Anonymously Yours,
I’m not taking any responsibilty for having taught a certain “one or two” of you commenting in this thread.
I don’t lose battles with little attorneys from K.C…. –billy
Yep it’s Waynebro, geez, you honestly got yourself kicked out man.
This is a fantastic magnetic space for ideas, I didn’t understand it then and still don’t, Waynebro you completely jumped off the deep end. Now this billy incarnation of you Waynebro is just silly.
I have no idea what it would take for you to make amends, but it would be more productive for all if you could. Wayne I honestly don’t get it, you can’t enjoy being the veiled protagonist?
Ohhh, I see you’ve opted to squirm. I like that even better.
The issue has been framed. You refuse to address it through various forms of evasion. Your inability to engage the task shows it is your skills not up to the task, lil’ billy, but thanks for illustrating the psychological dynamic of projection.
I made an assertion and I gave examples.
You have presented neither evidence nor refutation, only attempts at evasion and obfuscation.
That about sums it up.
As to your earlier assertion, which one do you mean? The first one that got smacked down or the one where you called me a bigot for daring to dislike an organization that protects pedophiles. Tsk tsk tsk.
I think I see the problem here.
You’re all hat and no cowboy. Well. I think you may be a cowboy in the sense that they used that term in the old west. They actually liked the term “drover”, cowboy.
Hey . . . is this you?
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/24/new-jersey-judge-drops-charges-against-police-officer-for-having-sex-with-cows-on-the-grounds-that-they-may-have-enjoyed-it/
But seriously. Is it? No, no, I kid. No. Not really. But again, seriously . . .
Put up or shut up. You wanted an argument and you got one and, lo and behold, you can’t get out of it. Boo hoo. It’s not like this very same scenario hasn’t played out in every encounter with every regular you’ve ever had.
And Buddha’s date is at the door. On that note, I look forward to your fine display of frontier gibberish in the morning. Time for us to go to another place you’d need fake ID to get into, billy. Buh bye.
Cry uncle before it is to late son, you don’t want any of this. I will mop the floor with you and your “crazy”, two-bit argument from “google” or “bing” or uncle jeeves. Trust me, you don’t want any part of my logic. I have been playing nice, be grateful..
Just what I thought, run back to the table with Byron and AY, you’ll never be “emperor of the North Pole”. I’m a “meat eater” kid, and I don’t lose battles with little attorneys from K.C….
I will carve you up like a “holiday roast”….
Come on.
I bet I can muster more proof that the RCC are indeed aiders and abettors and conspirators to evade justice. How is this?
I have the Google.
Make your case though. If you can.
You don’t have the “skill set” to tangle with me…
In a line by line refutaion, attempt to debunk, the facts I have provided for you. You have read my thread, you have yet to respond, “please buddha”, thrall me with your acumen, troll…
Disprove mine, from earlier in the day, green goblin…